Re: [sca-j] ISSUE 122: EJB Binding - Remove references to conversationalfunction - proposal v2 and Call for action

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

I like (c) or (d) as well.

-Anish
--

David Booz wrote:
> Anish,
> Thanks for taking the time to review. I've addressed the editorial 
> comments and will post those updates once we resolve your non-ed comment.
> 
> It is legal to remove a stateless session bean, but the effect is not 
> visible to the client. That is, you can successfully invoke a business 
> method after calling remove.
> 
> What if we changed the behavior column to one of:
> (a) N/A
> (b) not-applicable
> (c) This is a no-op for stateless session beans.
> 
> Or possibly even better:
> (d) Remove the first two rows of the table as there is nothing SCA 
> specific to say about the remove() or getPrimaryKey() methods. Further, 
> there are more methods in the EJBObject and EJBLocalObject interfaces 
> which currently aren't mentioned at all in the table, so the table has 
> never been an exhaustive treatment of those interfaces.
> 
> I have a slight preference for (c) or (d).
> 
> Dave Booz
> STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
> Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
> "Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
> Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
> e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com
> 
> Inactive hide details for Anish Karmarkar ---06/12/2009 02:13:18 
> AM---Two very minor ed comments: 1) 3rd para in section 1 (whiAnish 
> Karmarkar ---06/12/2009 02:13:18 AM---Two very minor ed comments: 1) 3rd 
> para in section 1 (which has only one sentence) can be merged
> 
> 
> From:	
> Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
> 
> To:	
> David Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS
> 
> Cc:	
> sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
> 
> Date:	
> 06/12/2009 02:13 AM
> 
> Subject:	
> Re: [sca-j] ISSUE 122: EJB Binding - Remove references to conversational 
> function - proposal v2 and Call for action
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> Two very minor ed comments:
> 
> 1) 3rd para in section 1 (which has only one sentence) can be merged
> with the 5th para (right after the bullets). They belong together.
> 2) s/Stateful session beans are out of scope in this
> specification/Stateful session beans are out of scope for this
> specification/
> 
> One non-ed comment:
> 
> 1) The table in section 6.1 now says that 'Remove' is a no-op. We don't
> have very many RFC 2119 keywords right now. But if this table is a MUST,
> then support for stateful session beans can't be an extension point.
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> David Booz wrote:
>  > I made some textual updates to section 1 following the comments from the
>  > last telecon, rewording the removal of stateful session beans to 'out of
>  > scope'. No other updates have been made as no other textual changes have
>  > been proposed.
>  >
>  > The sense of the TC was that some time was needed to contemplate the
>  > removal of stateful session bean support from the spec. This is your
>  > reminder to put your thoughts into email.
>  >
>  > /(See attached file: sca-ejbbinding-1.1-spec-wd-03+issue122_v2.doc)/
>  >
>  > Dave Booz
>  > STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
>  > Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
>  > "Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
>  > Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
>  > e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com
>  >
>  >
>  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >
>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>  > generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>  > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
> 
>